Guild Wars Wiki talk:One-revert rule/Archive 2

Guild Pages

Could we add that the 1RR doesn't apply to your own guilds page? For example, say someone edited my guilds page and I reverted it and they reverted me. Does make sense that I shouldn't be allowed to revert something on my own guild page? — ク Eloc 貢 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's vandalism, there's already an exception for that. If it's not vandalism, I don't see a reason it shouldn't be discussed rather than getting into an edit war. I don't really like the precedent it sets. What if two guild members are in a disagreement over what should be on their guild page? What if two people claim it's their guild? Should we keep letting them revert war forever, or have to go in-game to prove which of them gets the last edit? If someone cares enough about something on your guild page to change and then revert your revert, and it's not vandalism, why not discuss it with them? - Tanetris 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Tanetris in this case. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bump this topic. I still don't think that the 1RR is fair if it's your own guild. I think that it shouldn't apply if you can prove that it's your guild. — ク Eloc 貢 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also gonna have to agree with Tanetris. If that "someone" who edited your page vandalized, you're already free to revert it. If it wasn't vandalism, it's hard for anyone to know if the guild is yours, and unless you personally want to look through proof of people claiming they own a guild, I don't see how guild pages could be an exception TBH. — Galil 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tanetris, Aiiane, and Galil are all right, Eloc. And why would you need no 1-RR for guild pages? Calor 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind about guild pages is that it is not "my guild page", but rather "a wiki page about my guild". When you look at it that way, it makes it clearer on why 1RR should still apply. If there's a dispute on how best to describe a guild, talk it out. If there's a dispute on who should be on the contact list or which the correct website/forum and such, provide proof. It might help explain your view if you have a concrete example in mind as to what specific scenarios you're thinking of. -- ab.er.rant 09:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

So what if someone reverts your revert (meaning this rule is placed into effect) and you post something on the talk page and a few days pass and they don't say anything, does that mean you are allowed to revert? Should we place a time amount that you are not allowed to revert in? For example, Wikipedias 3 revert rule says that you can't revert more than 3 times in 1 day. Should we have something like that? — ク Eloc 貢 07:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote the policy: "If the person who made the other revert doesn't respond on the article's talk page after a reasonable amount of time (remember not everyone spends all their time on the wiki), consider leaving a polite note on the user's talk page pointing to the relevant section of the article's talk page. If you cannot reach consensus, you can also post on Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for comment to draw attention from the rest of the community." As for a time limit, that was discussed above (I'd point to a specific section, but it's all rather disorganized) and I continue to oppose one. - Tanetris 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the matter is important enough and clear cut enough that adding the disputed content is warranted, and the other reverted does not respond, it should not be a problem finding another editor who agrees with you in a reasonable amount of time to do the modification. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification requested

A question Backsword asked me and recent examples have left me unclear as to what this policy is supposed to prevent. The explanation of reverts on this policy is insufficient (to me anyway). Could someone add in an example or two? To make sure everyone interprets it the same way. For example: User A makes an edit. User B reverts. User A reverts User B's revert. Is User A in violation of this policy given the definition of "Each editor may not perform more than one related revert..." -- ab.er.rant 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought of User A's first edit itself being an effective "revert" in this case -- i.e. User A makes an edit, User B reverts. If User A reverts back to his revision, that's in violation. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, if someone else does revert, the whole point of the policy is to stop further reverting. Whether or not something is literally a revert, there should still be discussion to sort out whatever the problem is. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always interpreted a revert as just that, a revert. Not the first edit. So my answer would be no, User A is not in violation. - anja 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anja, I was hoping I wasn't the only one to interpret it that way :D I think this serves to show that actual examples help make sure we're all reading this the same way. -- ab.er.rant 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So far I used Anja's interpretation as well. Regardless of what interpretation we use, we should make it clear in the policy, though. --Xeeron 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I always thought everyone read this policy the same way as me. It's just so...obvious. But apparently there is (at least!) three different interpretations of the same point.

I'd like to examine those with an extended example:

1. A adds something to an article, in section X
2. B removes it from section X, and adds it to section Y (moves it)
3. C removes it.
4. A readds it, in section Y.
5. C removes it again.

Questions:

Q1: Is A violating policy? (Yes, if I read Brains correctly)

Q2: Is B violating policy?

Q3: Is C violating policy? (No, Aberrant claimed to my surprise)

Q4: Does B's action affect this at all?

Q5: If there was an extra event: 3 A readds it to section X. (not touching the copy in Y) , would that affect things?

Q6: If that extra event was followed by B removing it from X, is B breaking the rules?

Backsword 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Think of an article as a whole. After C has reverted, A is violating if he readds the information anywhere.
2. B is not in violation -- his one edit was simply a maintenance edit, moving something to a more appropriate place.
3. C in step 3 has made the first revert. He is not in violation, but if anyone else from this point wishes to object or enquire about the revert, we go into discussion mode. Sort out the problem before re-reverting -- whoever it is. That's the whole spirit of the policy -- don't continuously revert and find a solution. In step 5, C is definately in violation in both spirit and word by re-re-reverting.
4. B's action was a maintenance edit, neither an addition nor removal -- it has no effect in this situation (however, if the situation was based on where a piece of information would go, then yes, it would have an effect -- however, seeing as this is based on a total removal from the article itself, it doesn't).
5. Again, going against the spirit.
6. It's not relevant -- we should already be in discussion at this point; so if this event does occur, B would be in violation of spirit (assuming there is the same information somewhere else on the page).

However, this might all be very different in certain situations -- one must take into account the actual edit, what's being added and removed, and the appropriateness of each edit and removal. There are grey areas, so I'm hesitent to go with an example; I would rather we cleared up the wording in order to make the spirit clearer. -- Brains12 \ talk 08:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Imo no, as A reverts to a revision which was not made by him but by B.

2. Of course not, it is just a improvement of A's edit.

3. The first edit C did is fine, but the second in #5 is definitely a violation of this policy.

4. Only as the base edit by A was changed, so it allows A to revert C later (as A accepts B's edit).

5. There are two possibilities: Either A wants to have it in both sections (which would be stupid imo :P) or A didn't see that B moved it, so it is just a mistake. In both cases I wouldn't say it is a violation of the policy.

6. I would interpret it as B is fixing the mistake (see before) A did; if A wants to have it in both, that it would be a violation but as you cannot say that before it wouldn't be a violation to me.

In all steps the edit summaries might be important to interpret the situation (for example if B adds something like "moved to section Y instead"). poke | talk 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A revert is something which returns the article to a previous state, hence the name (from reversion). Adding new content is not a revert. The only person "in violation" of this policy in your example is C - removing the content at (3) was their first revert; removing it again at (5) is a second revert and thus violating the policy. A's first addition in (1) is not a reversion to a previous state of the article (note that this doesn't have to be an exact state, but just in terms of general content/formatting), A's re-addition of the content in (4) is a revert, and is thus A's single revert that they are allowed under policy. B's change is not a revert at all and thus obviously is not a violation. How is the wording not clear? A reversion is just that, a reversion, not an addition, not a change, but a reversion. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's kinda how I would look at it, although I'd probably be a little unsure about 5 and 6 if it were up to me. The policy explains what a revert is; so I guess a little clarification that might help would be to explain what a revert isn't. -- ab.er.rant 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)~

Aiiane's understanding is pretty much mine, tho' I am less certain about Q6. I could see both sides raising valid concerns here, and it would be preferable to resolv those before it happen in a real situation. (Aside, can't see how Aberrant can agree and still consider step 3 an original edit.) Backsword 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A revert is revA -> revB -> revA. Everything else isn't. But what about partial reverts? poke | talk 09:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Partial reverts are still reverts. They don't add anything new to the article. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what about if there are three sections: A changes section 1 and 2 and B partial reverts the change in section 2 but changes section 3 as well? :P poke | talk 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Think about it. Each separate edit is an edit in itself, and each edit can be broken down into separate changes. If B's changes to section 3 have no similarity to that of the other sections, it's just another edit. Look at what's being reverted, rather than trying to find a blanket explanation to solve every situation. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Brains here. If you try to be facetious about it, you'll run into problems. That's inevitable. Wikilawyering is contrary to the goals of the wiki. A revert is an action, not a diff. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love for that to work, Aiiane, but crying "wikilawyering" in a hot situation will just inflame things further. Backsword 03:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let the admins worry about dealing with other people trying to wikilawyer, and just don't do it yourself. What it comes down to is that you can't write everything into policy - at some point you just have to let it be handled on a case-by-case basis. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to follow this conversation is making me dizzy :P One more reason I don't ever want to be an admin :P-- Wynthyst 09:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Situations where one part clearly is is not my concern, but ones where both are seemingly acting in good faith. Admins picking sides and starting namecalling is not exactly desirable in such situations. And while I agree one can't predict everything, nor should one try, tris is both a clearly defined and predictable situation. Backsword 00:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If both are acting in good faith, then they won't have to be "name-called" on wikilawyering; they'll either realize it themselves or have it politely pointed out to them. Furthermore, pointing out that someone is wikilawyering does not necessarily involve "taking sides", I don't have to disagree with what someone is saying to point out that they're being lawyerish about it and it'd be better to take a more reasoned approach. The point is, we could go around in circles here but we're not ever going to get something that's perfect; let's just leave it as it is and trust in those who enforce it to do so effectively, until and unless we run into a situation where it's clearly show that won't work. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly cover all pages

IMO we should consider replacing all instances of "article" in this policy with "page" in order to make the policy explicitly cover all namespaces. -- Gordon Ecker 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. poke | talk 06:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well; revert wars have a way of escalating whether they're on user talk pages or mainspace articles, so I see no reason that we shouldn't extend the scope of 1RR to cover all the namespaces. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I always understood this to mean all pages, so the replacement makes sence. Agreed. --Xeeron 13:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And I thought it was a complex change ;) No harm in clarifying. -- ab.er.rant 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me too. --Kakarot 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Formally proposed at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy#Guild Wars Wiki:One-revert rule. -- Gordon Ecker 04:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. The clarification is useful. -- Indochine talk 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Dominator Matrix 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Reverts are quite powerful, and should not be abused. --People of Antioch 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, looking at it from the perspective of 'can this clarification cause any harm' I see no reason not to do it. Backsword 08:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

oh... I thought the rule already covered everything? Sounds like a decent progression on the current rule. (Terra Xin 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. Good idea Gordon. — ク Eloc 貢 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please implement the change? poke | talk 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anja :) poke | talk 13:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:) - anja 13:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)